Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 1242
  • 62758
  • 0


The debate on Climate Change   General Confusion

Started 7/18/17 by Jenifer (Zarknorph); 193376 views.
Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)


I trust the news source, John.

I know you now see FAKE NEWS everywhere, but no.

It's just The News.

In reply toRe: msg 80
Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)


Plants release up to 30 per cent more CO2 than previously thought, study says


While much focus is placed on human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, research from teams around the world suggests plants could be contributing up to 11 times as much.

A study involving the Australian National University, Western Sydney University, and centres around the world has found plants release more carbon dioxide through their respiration than previously thought.

And what is more, as global temperatures rise, scientists say the output of carbon dioxide by plants will accelerate.

During daylight hours, plants take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen through photosynthesis, however plants also release carbon dioxide through respiration.

ANU researcher Owen Atkin said plant respiration was previously thought to account for five to eight times the carbon compared to human activity.

However the new findings suggested that number could be much higher.

"Each year the burning of fossil fuels releases around 5 to 8 billion tons of carbon … so the respiration by plants is somewhere approaching 11 times that in our new estimate," he said.

"That's an enormous flux.

"What will happen in the future will be that those rates of carbon released by plants will increase as the world gets warmer, and it will have an impact on how much carbon is stored in vegetation, how much accumulates in the atmosphere in the future."

The study examined about 1,000 plant species in a range of climate extremes, to determine how much carbon dioxide is released in various scenarios.

"This will have fairly substantial implications for our ability to model carbon flows between landscapes and the atmosphere, and ultimately how much carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere," Professor Atkin said.

Researchers said plants could also see a declining ability to absorb carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere through photosynthesis, and that carbon flow models and budget projections would need to be altered in response to the findings.

Great... Now I have to become vegetarian!

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)


Can China actually lead on climate change?

China is in the "driving seat" when it comes to "international co-operation" on climate, said President Xi Jinping at a major political meeting in Beijing ahead of the UN-led climate talks in Bonn earlier this month, the first annual meeting of the negotiations since President Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the agreement.

Mr Trump's decision had left a power vacuum: the historic accord reached in 2014 between then president Barack Obama and Mr Xi, leading the world's two largest economies, which together account for about 40 per cent of global emissions, had underpinned the consensus reached by the international community in late 2015 in Paris. Could China alone fill that vacuum?

China certainly made its presence felt at the talks, but often in its traditional stance as defender of the developing countries, arguing that rich countries must shoulder the greater burden of decarbonisation, a position reportedly described by Greenpeace East Asia campaigner Li Shuo as "an inevitable result of international climate diplomacy in the post-US era".

China's carbon emissions have also risen this year, after two years of slight decline.

Still, it is committed to peak before 2030, and it leads the world in clean technologies — accounting for five of the world's top six solar PV manufacturers, and seven of the top-15 wind turbine manufacturers.

China is also investing more than $US100 billion a year in domestic renewable energy projects — more than double the US figure. At about $US32 billion, its investment in green technology overseas is also the largest in the world.

Mr Xi has made environmental ambition a signature of his rhetoric, having coined the florid phrase, "clear waters and green mountains are as valuable as mountains of gold and silver". By contrast, the US President is not only averse to environmental regulation, but even once tweeted, preposterously, that climate change is a Chinese hoax.


The world is moving on, as it should.

danedon (danedon2)

From: danedon (danedon2)


Didn't you mean to say, People like Trump with moronic ideas?wink


From: ElDotardo


I do what I can to inject the opposing view - it just happens to fall outside the Cult of Hotcoldwetdry . . .

NOAA Lets Politics Corrupt Its Science

Larry Bell

Objective science once conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was coopted by the Obama administration to push anti-fossil energy policies under the guise of CO2 influences on climate change and ocean acidification. Just as they got caught by a whistleblower fudging ocean temperature records in advance of 2015 U.N. Paris Climate talks, they also actively played politics to garner media alarm attributing CO2 emissions to invalidated claims of impacts upon aquatic ecosystems.

As I previously reported in my Feb. 13 Newsmax column titled "Whistleblower Links NOAA Study to Climate Treaty Agendas," former NOAA scientist Jim Bates charged that his boss Thomas Karl had "adjusted" sea surface temperature measurements between 1998 and 2012 in order to make recent global temperature changes appear to warm more than twice as much as the original records showed.

Karl then rushed to publish his scientifically unverified report in time "to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy." The U.K.’s Daily Mail reported, "His [Bates’] vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a 'blatant attempt to intensify the impact' of what became known as the Pausebuster Paper."

In July, 2014, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee subpoenaed NOAA for the suspicious research records. NOAA has subsequently stonewalled demands for Karl’s corroborating research evidence and related internal communications . . . even from Congress.

As Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, explained, "It was inconvenient for this administration that climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get politically correct results they want, and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made."

Internal emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by website publisher and attorney Steven Milloy reveal NOAA media campaigns to politicize unsubstantiated CO2-caused ocean ecosystem impacts along with its "evil twin" climate influences.

A communication from NOAA’s Ocean Acidification Director Libby Jewett lauds a previous "great job" by staff member Madelyn Applebaum in writing "two widely-praised and referenced op-eds." She notes that the first one on space weather was quickly bumped up to Obama White House Science Director John Holdren.

The second article addressing ocean acidification (OA) which was developed "literally overnight" was also immediately approved by Holdren. It appeared in an Oct. 15, 2015 New York Times article titled "Our Deadened, Carbon-Soaked Seas."

...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)


I find it strange that two people can look at the same graph and see a different line.

You picked two random points and joined them to show no change.

That's not how scientific data works.

You have to look at the whole trend, removing extremes and anomalies.

Also - the sharp downturn at the end may well be the result of global action on climate change.


From: Johneeo


Dandy Lion,

You are far too intelligent and informed to be a part of this forum.

Go away.